AHC No rise of the military aristocracy in the Byzantine empire

alright here is a challenge. With a POD after 10th century find a way to prevent the Byzantine military aristocracy from rising to power and keep the emperor in complete and absolute control. Is it possible or not.. Also if the military aristocracy never takes power how different would byzantine polocy look with no rise of the aristocracy to power and prominence.
 
Almost certainly too late, though it depends on what you mean.

The Emperor being in complete and absolute control is not mutually exclusive with the military aristocracy.

And usurpation...has been happening since what, Justinian II?

Possibly earlier, but his reign is the first I can think of offhand.
 
^Happening since the death of Marcus Aurelius actually. Why do you think they call it the Dominate?
 
Point. I'm just looking at the period when its the 'Byzantine" era.

The Emperor is absolute...he's either God's right hand (not sure what the pre-Christian title is, however) or he's replaced by someone else who is. Very tidy.
 
Point. I'm just looking at the period when its the 'Byzantine" era.

The Emperor is absolute...he's either God's right hand (not sure what the pre-Christian title is, however) or he's replaced by someone else who is. Very tidy.
Pontiff right? That was the high priest of the Roman religion and later became a title stuck onto the emperor. Vicar might be another option.
 
Pontiff right? That was the high priest of the Roman religion and later became a title stuck onto the emperor. Vicar might be another option.

For some reason, imagining a Roman Emperor as "Vicar" is making me think of Keeping Mum, which is a great movie but a hilariously incongruous mental image.

:D

This is now an awesome by definition moment.
 
alright here is a challenge. With a POD after 10th century find a way to prevent the Byzantine military aristocracy from rising to power and keep the emperor in complete and absolute control. Is it possible or not.. Also if the military aristocracy never takes power how different would byzantine polocy look with no rise of the aristocracy to power and prominence.

I think that you'll always get a powerful aristocracy dictating policy in the Empire, to be honest. Their power was relatively held in check in the seventh and eighth centuries because their heartland in Anatolia was frequently under attack from the Arabs, but as soon as the Rhomanians went back on the initiative, they re-emerged. Probably the best way you can stop them coming back is to keep the Arabs a constant danger to the ERE.

^Happening since the death of Marcus Aurelius actually. Why do you think they call it the Dominate?

I'd say that the power of a military aristocracy wasn't really a developing process over Roman Imperial history, and argue that on the contrary, a military aristocracy was an important part of nearly all pre-modern societies. After all, what were Sulla and Julius Caesar if not military aristocrats?

As an aside, I'd say the reason that the period after Diocletian is called the Dominate is because the Emperor became stronger vis a vis the military aristocracy, not weaker.

Pontiff right? That was the high priest of the Roman religion and later became a title stuck onto the emperor. Vicar might be another option.

The title of Pontiff was given up by the late fourth century by the Emperor. His religious authority derived not from holding any office, but from being "Equal of the Apostles". For the sake of this discussion, then, the Emperor in Constantinople never held the title Pontifex Maximus.
 
BG:

Elfwine said:
The Emperor is absolute...he's either God's right hand (not sure what the pre-Christian title is, however) or he's replaced by someone else who is. Very tidy.

Here's a question on the military aristocracy. Do we consider the Macedonian dynasty's struggle to keep them from keeping all the peasants (specifically, peasant tax payers and peasant soldiers) to themselves the issue?

If so, we have a different problem than a lack of Emperor-vs.-nobility power, its more the inability of the state to consistently hog that part of the population.

I'm all for the peasants and the Emperors, but I'm not sure how much the struggle was more about keeping the powerful from challenging the dynasty's hold on power than the Emperor vs. the nobility in the sense we see in the HRE or the Empire's wellbeing.

Basil II especially seems more an attempt to deny anyone the power base to take the throne than to strengthen the yeomanry.
 
I once read that it was the Macedonian dynasty that changed the qualification of what was required to be obligated to provide a cataphract to the army. Previously in the Theme system a family holding land to the value of one pound of gold had to provide a cataphract for the army. But it was changed to be land to the value of 4 pounds of gold, so everyone else paid taxes which were used to pay for standing forces used in offensive operations. As a result the empire got out of the habit of providing its military power from a broad and involved population base. From there its only a medium step to troops giving their loyalty to the man who pays their wages.
 
Top